91–100 of 103 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations aren't the entities with a monopoly on the use of force. Governments are.
Well, that depends on whether we're talking about banana republics or ideal republics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So would owning a site called childporn.com and allowing people to post direct links to download child pornography without any attempt to stop it also not be a crime? Again, I'm being serious that I really dont know the answer. These are the actual issues at play. Can one really free themselves of legal responsibility by just saying we don't host or post the files ourselves?
Well, you're asking two questions here: 1. is it legal right now That I can't say. Ask a lawyer. Most probably not, depending. 2. should it be legal right now Yes, yes it should. That's the entire point behind "free speech" - once you start drawing lines, shit happens. And the problem isn't with child porn per se, the problem is with the horrific acts that produce it and the mentality of the people who enjoy it, but…
The act of living in a society involves the drawing of lines and without those lines you don't have a society.
The difficult question has always been where to draw the line?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality. There was a story that made the rounds a while ago… A felon flees police in a car, and later specifically swerves left to run-over the cop up ahead that is trying to deploy spikes on the road, and ends up running over his legs. Minutes later that felon crashes the car. At the same…
Here's a selective filter: when a cop is murdered by a civilian in the line of duty, the civilian goes to prison. When a civilian is murdered by the cop, the cop might lose his job, or he might just get suspended with pay. Here's another selective filter: if a cop wants to shoot a taser at me and electrocute me, the worst he's going to get is a disciplinary hearing. If I as much as touch a police officer on the shoul…
When a cop murders a civilian, there's a very plausible reason: He felt his life was threatened, and is authorized to use lethal force in that situation.
We've got a system where you have to prove guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt". The threat of violence against police officers is a pretty big and common "reasonable doubt", when talking about killings with a police officer as the defendant, and a significant part of that is assholes like you who seem to think that violence against police officers is justified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a selective filter: when a cop is murdered by a civilian in the line of duty, the civilian goes to prison. When a civilian is murdered by the cop, the cop might lose his job, or he might just get suspended with pay. Here's another selective filter: if a cop wants to shoot a taser at me and electrocute me, the worst he's going to get is a disciplinary hearing. If I as much as touch a police officer on the shoul…
Here's your goddamn selective filter: When a cop is murdered by a civilian, there's very little in the way of good reason why the civilian should be willing/required to use lethal force; The proper remedy for abuses of power by the police is a day in court, as broken as that can be. When a cop murders a civilian, there's a very plausible reason: He felt his life was threatened, and is authorized to use lethal force i…
The cop never gets his day in court. Go on, look it up. Almost no cop-on-civilian homicides ever go to trial. Charges are never filed. It's not in the interests of prosecutors to cross law enforcement.
By the way, look up Randy Weaver. He was acquitted of murdering law enforcement officers on the basis of self-defense. Unfortunately, the FBI sniper who shot his wife in the head while she was holding their baby was never charged.
> When a cop murders a civilian, there's a very plausible reason: He felt his life was threatened, and is authorized to use lethal force in that situation.
It's the right of everyone, not just cops, to defend themselves with lethal force. The difference is that I, as a civilian, would not get away with shooting a woodcarver to death just because he was holding a carving knife. Someone who volunteers to protect civilians for a living should have an equal or higher bar for self-defense, not a lower one. It's the duty of a police officer to risk his life to protect a civilian, not the other way around.
> a significant part of that is assholes like you who seem to think that violence against police officers is justified
I don't think violence against police officers is justified, you fascist pig. I think what's justified is for killer cops to have their day in court, not just suspension without pay followed by a graceful early retirement.
As countries become more corrupted, their "legal" system becomes less about the law and justice, and more an arm of the state to impose its will. I've seen countless examples of this, where the law was ignored, precedent and procedure was ignored, and obviously corrupted officials acted for their best interest in persecuting the people the state had decided needed persecution. In fact, this tendency is so common, his…
> I can think of nothing more corrupt than, for instance, florida cops stopping tourists to take all their money. That's the worst you can think of? Well, lucky you. Even so, a few bent cops don't mean all police officers are like that. Plenty of them are doing the best they can. > So, what is to be done? Well, now that you've laid it out this clear, the way forward is obvious: Revolution!!
We already had a peaceful revolution just a year ago: Occupy Wall Street. Did anything change? No, because the state can and will exert its violence against anyone trying to reform it.
Things need to get much worse for people to be willing to take on a violent revolution. I'm sure this will happen at some point, but then the best thing you can do is leaving the country. Most violent revolutions end in tyranny. Think of the Russian or Cuban revolutions. The US Revolution was a lucky exception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can think of nothing more corrupt than, for instance, florida cops stopping tourists to take all their money. That's the worst you can think of? Well, lucky you. Even so, a few bent cops don't mean all police officers are like that. Plenty of them are doing the best they can. > So, what is to be done? Well, now that you've laid it out this clear, the way forward is obvious: Revolution!!
> the way forward is obvious: Revolution!! We already had a peaceful revolution just a year ago: Occupy Wall Street. Did anything change? No, because the state can and will exert its violence against anyone trying to reform it. Things need to get much worse for people to be willing to take on a violent revolution. I'm sure this will happen at some point, but then the best thing you can do is leaving the country. Most…
Canadian anarchists are not the right group to jump-start a broadly carried demand for change.
The US revolution was more akin to a war for independence.
The French had a revolution, and it came off pretty good. Unless you were rich, of course.
Down with government! The internet is dead! LONG LIVE THE INTERNET! Honestly though, Sweden will never be forgiven. I hassle Swedes every time I see them now, and have done for nearly a couple of years. Mostly they are ignorant (particularly the older ones), but some of the young people are on our side (though not necessarily following the issues). Seems their political and legal systems have slipped together in to e…
I'm a Swede who will gladly punch you in the face when I see you. The Pirate Bay trial was a spectacle but in no way representative for Sweden in general.
Or the unrelated, completely warrantless extradition and 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement of anataka, from a third country, with absolutely no legal process?
Why was the "Banana republic justice: " prefix removed from the title? I really don't like the subversive censorship on HN. Who are these mods, and who are they to make a decision on how/when titles should be changed?
Because it's inflammatory, and patently nonsense. By any non-mad definition, Sweden is not a banana republic. Saying so prejudices the points made (though frankly, the entire "article" is 1 sided hyperbole).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're thinking of another judge, in the Netherlands. I haven't written in English about this subject before AFAIK.
Now that I think about it, you're right, it was the Netherlands judge story. My fault.
I frequently publish a story when I'm 98% sure - pretty much every single time, the details will fill in as people come to visit and add it to the comments field, frequently enough enriching the story beyond what I first thought. That one time, it didn't, and I'm still somewhat bitter over my misjudgement.
Cheers, Rick
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a Swede who will gladly punch you in the face when I see you. The Pirate Bay trial was a spectacle but in no way representative for Sweden in general.
Err, how about the Assange case then? Or the unrelated, completely warrantless extradition and 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement of anataka, from a third country, with absolutely no legal process?